Search

Introduction Older people living in residential and nursing care homes often have complex needs and are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality, especially if they contract COVID-19. Care homes use infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing and isolating residents to protect them from COVID-19. The care home sector has stated that implementing social distancing and isolation when caring for residents is a significant challenge. This paper presents the protocol of a mixed-methods study to explore and understand the real-life experiences of implementing social distancing and isolation of residents in care homes for older people from the perspective of residents, families/friends and staff working in and with care homes. The study aims to develop a toolkit of resources for health and care delivery now and for future outbreaks of infectious diseases.Methods and analysis The study will be conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is a rapid review of evidence to collate knowledge on the mechanisms and measures used by care homes and long-term facilities to socially distance and isolate older people or control the spread of other infectious and contagious diseases. The review results will contribute to participant interviews in phase 2 and toolkit development in phase 3. Phase 2 will involve case studies with six care homes in England, involving the conduct of individual interviews with residents, families and friends, and staff, collection of care home policies and protocols related to social distancing and isolation for residents, and routinely collected care home data. A focus group with a purposive sample of external key informants will also be conducted. Phase 3, synthesising findings from phases 1 and 2, will inform the codesign of a toolkit of resources for residents, families/friends and care homes.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (20/WM/0318). To maximise impact, we will work closely with the Study Committees and the Patient and Public Involvement group to ensure the findings reach key stakeholders, including residents, families/friends, care homes, commissioners and organisations representing care home providers. We will disseminate the study outputs in peer-reviewed and professional journals, at professional conferences and via other knowledge transfer activities with the care home sector, and resident and carer organisations. The toolkit comprising evidence-informed guidance and resources and a mosaic film will be hosted on a project webpage.Registration details This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Project reference NIHR132541). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021226734.

Objective To explore facilitators and barriers to using experience-based co-design (EBCD) and accelerated EBCD (AEBCD) in the development and implementation of interventions to increase activity opportunities for inpatient stroke survivors.Design Mixed-methods process evaluation underpinned by normalisation process theory (NPT).Setting Four post-acute rehabilitation stroke units in England.Participants Stroke survivors, family members, stroke unit staff, hospital managers, support staff and volunteers. Data informing our NPT analysis comprised: ethnographic observations, n=366 hours; semistructured interviews with 76 staff, 53 stroke survivors and 27 family members pre-EBCD/AEBCD implementation or post-EBCD/AEBCD implementation; and observation of 43 co-design meetings involving 23 stroke survivors, 21 family carers and 54 staff.Results Former patients and families valued participation in EBCD/AEBCD perceiving they were equal partners in co-design. Staff engaged with EBCD/AEBCD, reporting it as a valuable improvement approach leading to increased activity opportunities. The structured EBCD/AEBCD approach was influential in enabling coherence and cognitive participation and legitimated staff involvement in the change process. Researcher facilitation of EBCD/AEBCD supported cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring; these were important in implementing and sustaining co-design activities. Observations and interviews post-EBCD/AEBCD cycles confirmed creation and use of new social spaces and increased activity opportunities in all units. EBCD/AEBCD facilitated engagement with wider hospital resources and local communities, further enhancing activity opportunities. However, outside of structured group activity, many individual staff–patient interactions remained task focused.Conclusions EBCD/AEBCD facilitated the development and implementation of environmental changes and revisions to work routines which supported increased activity opportunities in stroke units providing post-acute and rehabilitation care. Former stroke patients and carers contributed to improvements. NPT’s generative mechanisms were instrumental in analysis and interpretation of facilitators and barriers at the individual, group and organisational level, and can help inform future implementations of similar approaches.

Introduction As systems of health and social care in England move towards more integrated and collaborative models, leaders will need different skills than their predecessors to enable system leadership, building partnerships and working across organisations and sectors. There is little understanding of what the mechanisms for effective leadership across integrated health and social care systems might be, the contexts that influence good leadership, or the nature of the resulting outcomes. This review aims to identify, refine and test programme theories of leadership of integrated team-based services in health and social care, exploring what works, for whom and in what circumstances.Methods and analysis This study uses a realist synthesis approach, following RAMESES guidelines, supported by stakeholder consultation. Stage 1 will develop initial programme theories about leadership of integrated health and social care based on a review of the scientific and grey literature and a stakeholder consultation workshop. Stage 2 will involve focused searching of empirical literature, data extraction and synthesis to refine the initial programme theories and identify relationships between identified contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. A second stakeholder event will guide the focus of the review. Stage 3 will further refine and interrogate the theories testing them against substantive theory on leadership of complex systems and through the experiences and expertise of the stakeholder group.Ethics and dissemination Our study does not require ethics committee approval. This research will contribute to building an in-depth understanding of what aspects of leadership of integrated team-based services work, for whom and in what circumstances. It will identify the professional development needs of leaders and provide recommendations about optimal organisational and interorganisational structures and processes that support effective leadership in integrated health and social care systems. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations and formal and informal reports.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018119291